Not exact matches
Be the product
oil, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, or stem cells, there will be issues of
pollution, safety, pricing excess, and ethics that will be decided more by the maximization of profit than by good
science, open communication, and popular opinion.
Because I don't know enough
science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local
pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re
oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.
Science tells us that exploring and drilling for
oil in Alaska would be disastrous to the region's whales and other wildlife, dirtying the water and bringing noise
pollution that threatens the survival of many species.
Why should the utilities, cement producers, steel companies,
oil companies, and other giant polluters welcome any progress in the
science and technology of
pollution abatement?
Because I don't know enough
science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local
pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re
oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.